Snowdon is a dummy

Well hey, if the regime deems that these surveillance efforts were constitutional, then they're constitutional

The appeals court, however, ruled that the government had put in place adequate safeguards to avoid constitutional violations.

“We caution that our decision does not constitute an endorsement of broad-based, indiscriminate executive power,” the court wrote on Aug. 22, 2008. “Rather, our decision recognizes that where the government has instituted several layers of serviceable safeguards to protect individuals against unwarranted harms and to minimize incidental intrusions, its efforts to protect national security should not be frustrated by the courts. This is such a case.”

Two questions:

One...if you didn't "know about it"...what would be the result?

Two...now that you do "know about it"...so what?

Quote:

Can't help but wonder why you wrote: "On this day of remembrance, it would be nice to crack a few..."

One of these many things you don't get.

U.S. threatened massive fine to force Yahoo to release data

Quote:

The U.S. government threatened to fine Yahoo $250,000 a day in 2008 if it failed to comply with a broad demand to hand over user communications — a request the company believed was unconstitutional — according to court documents unsealed Thursday that illuminate how federal officials forced American tech companies to participate in the National Security Agency’s controversial PRISM program.

The documents, roughly 1,500 pages worth, outline a secret and ultimately unsuccessful legal battle by Yahoo to resist the government’s demands. The company’s loss required Yahoo to become one of the first to begin providing information to PRISM, a program that gave the NSA extensive access to records of online com­munications by users of Yahoo and other U.S.-based technology firms.

...

Central to the case was whether the Protect America Act overstepped constitutional bounds, particularly the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant. An early Yahoo filing said the case was “of tremendous national importance. The issues at stake in this litigation are the most serious issues that this Nation faces today — to what extent must the privacy rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution yield to protect our national security.”

The appeals court, however, ruled that the government had put in place adequate safeguards to avoid constitutional violations.

“We caution that our decision does not constitute an endorsement of broad-based, indiscriminate executive power,” the court wrote on Aug. 22, 2008. “Rather, our decision recognizes that where the government has instituted several layers of serviceable safeguards to protect individuals against unwarranted harms and to minimize incidental intrusions, its efforts to protect national security should not be frustrated by the courts. This is such a case.”

Well hey, if the regime deems that these surveillance efforts were constitutional, then they're constitutional.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Two questions:

One...if you didn't "know about it"...what would be the result?

Two...now that you do "know about it"...so what?

Ad 1.
I had still though that my privacy was respected, privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications and all that.

Ad 2
a. Now I know that there is no privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications in the USA.

b. I have learnt how secret rulings of a secret court are enforced in practise.

So the fact that you know it…means absolutely nothing with regard to your privacy.
It certainly does: any of my emails can be looked at by American authorities without that informing me.

Once again…now you know…and it makes no difference at all.

It makes no sense.

Actually...unless the SCOTUS ultimately rules that they are unconstitutional...then they are not unconstitutional.

I'm flattered, then...

Quote:

Actually...unless the SCOTUS ultimately rules that they are unconstitutional...then they are not unconstitutional.

Nope. Until the SCOTUS rules, their constitutionality is UNCLEAR or UNKNOWN or UNDECIDED.

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:

Actually...unless the SCOTUS ultimately rules that they are unconstitutional...then they are not unconstitutional.

Nope. Until the SCOTUS rules, their constitutionality is UNCLEAR or UNKNOWN or UNDECIDED.

Incorrect.

Quote:

Nope. Until the SCOTUS rules, their constitutionality is UNCLEAR or UNKNOWN or UNDECIDED.

Incorrect.

You're a sore loser.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:

Actually...unless the SCOTUS ultimately rules that they are unconstitutional...then they are not unconstitutional.

Nope. Until the SCOTUS rules, their constitutionality is UNCLEAR or UNKNOWN or UNDECIDED.

Incorrect.

But to decide if Snowden committed a crime, you don't need a court ruling, correct?

Quote:

Quote:

Nope. Until the SCOTUS rules, their constitutionality is UNCLEAR or UNKNOWN or UNDECIDED.

Incorrect.

Well, anyone with more than one brain cell knows they ARE in fact unconstitutional, but until the SCOTUS rules them so or otherwise, their constitutionality remains officially undecided.

But to decide if Snowden committed a crime, you don't need a court ruling, correct?

You need a trial to determine if Snowden is guilty of the crimes for which he is charged.

As for the other thing...Walter...in this country oatmeal is legal and constitutional...until the courts decide otherwise.